Background
The appellant appealed a June 25, 2026 decision of the Bat Yam Juvenile Court declining to recuse itself from dependency proceedings concerning her minor son. When filing the recusal appeal, she sought exemption from the required security for costs or, alternatively, reduction of the security to a nominal amount.
She argued that the appeal concerned judicial recusal in a dependency case rather than a financial or commercial dispute, that requiring security impaired her access to the courts, and that the respondent was a public body unlikely to incur unusual expenses. The respondent opposed the request, contending that the appellant had not satisfied the cumulative legal requirements for relief.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Ron Goldstein denied the application. A party seeking exemption from security for costs, or a reduction in its amount, must establish both inability to pay through complete and current factual and evidentiary material and a genuine prospect that the proceeding will succeed. The party must also show an inability to raise the security with assistance from close contacts. The appellant submitted no affidavit or other evidence about her financial circumstances and did not explain why third-party assistance was unavailable; that omission alone required denial.
The Registrar added that the appellant appeared to face a substantial hurdle on the merits under the standards governing recusal appeals. He also rejected her challenge to the ₪15,000 amount: Item 3 of the Third Schedule to the Civil Procedure Regulations, 2018 expressly requires security of ₪15,000 for an appeal from a recusal decision under section 77A of the Courts Law. The access-to-courts argument did not alter the result because that right is not absolute, and the governing rules balance it against other interests, including securing the opposing party’s costs.
The security was ordered deposited by August 16, 2026, failing which the appeal could be dismissed without further notice. The ruling resolved only the request concerning security, not the merits of the recusal appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant seeking waiver or reduction of security must provide complete, current evidence of financial inability and demonstrate genuine prospects of success.
- The applicant must also explain why the required sum cannot be raised with help from close contacts or other third parties.
- A recusal appeal under section 77A carries a prescribed ₪15,000 security requirement, even when the underlying proceeding is nonfinancial and concerns a child-dependency matter.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the sensitive, noncommercial character of juvenile dependency proceedings does not itself excuse compliance with appellate security requirements. Litigants seeking financial relief must substantiate their circumstances with evidence rather than rely solely on the nature of the underlying case or general access-to-justice concerns.
It also clarifies the limited procedural posture of such a ruling: denial of a security waiver does not decide the recusal appeal, but failure to deposit the prescribed amount by the deadline may prevent the appeal from being heard at all.